I.
Warming
before Cooling –
The trace to the First World War

a.
WWI ended
with a Climatic Jump

Last but not least, global warming that succeeded global
cooling by two decades. It was the second big climatic shift during
the last century, respectively since the end of the last Little Ice
Age, which ended about 160 years ago. Actually warming affected mainly
the Northern Hemisphere, and was in fact was a warming in the Arctic,
primarily located in the North Atlantic sector of the
Arctic
. Here it commenced in winter 1918/19[1],
sending warmth southward. In the
United States
it lasted until about 1933, in
Europe
until winter 1939/40. Precision in location and timing matter highly
in this case, as this may be the key to name the actual causes. The
more precisely a shift from a warm to a cold period are, and the
region where it occurred is identified, the more it might be possible
to identify the cause. Timing and location leave few options, but to
regard the naval war in Europe from August 1914 to November 1918 as
the most promising event that gave the kick off to, or contributed to
the unprecedented warming trend from 1919 to 1939.

Figure
I-2; Arctic T°C anomaly north of 70°North

As timing and location of the commencement of an Early Arctic
warming (EAW) is still not a settled issue in science, the matter was
thoroughly investigated in a recent book: “Arctic Heats Up,
Spitsbergen 1919-1939” (see p. 221). For this reason the following
discussion with regard to timing, location, and the link to naval war
in
Europe
presents a general overview. However the emphasis is on the
interconnection between the naval war and the result in temperature
increase in the Spitsbergen /
Fram
Strait
region.

aa. Overview – Season

A substantial point in the EAW matter is a more pronounced
warming of the Northern Hemisphere and primarily during the winter
season. That is exactly what the warming period in the early 20th
Century is primarily all about. While the summer temperatures
increased only modestly, the winters generated steep warming as
observed at Spitsbergen (Figure below, I-3), which is also well
reflected in the annual data set for latitude north of 70°N (Fig.
I-2). The decade from 1921 to 1930 showed remarkable winter warming
(Fig. G3-1, p. 173), which lasted until 1940. This fact is a paramount
aspect to identify the reason for this significant shift during the
winter period. The influence of the sun is remote north of 50°N (i.e.
London
, Vancouver), but any warming must have been coming from somewhere
else.

bb.Time and Region

Fig.
I-3 Spitsbergen T°C during the season, 1910-1975

The
upper two rows in TM14, (next page) give a clear indication that the
previous warming period in the 1920s and 1930s was located primarily
in the North Atlantic section of the
Arctic Ocean
. Graphics demonstrate equally that the temperature rise commenced
before 1920, probably in 1918. This date (1918) should be regarded as
the time when the
Arctic
suddenly moved into a strong warming period. Actually warming started
in the
Spitsbergen
region, and was only subsequently observed beyond this station. With
some generalisation there had been a modest temperature increase
before 1910 (Fig. I-2), followed by a significant decrease from 1910
to 1917. At
Spitsbergen
the shift between winter 1912 and 1918 and winter 1919/23 is about 8°C,
for the whole Arctic region the increase between the decades before
and after 1919 is about 2°C.

cc.Causes

Cause I:
West Spitsbergen
Current

Having established the time and region of the sudden
temperature shift close to
Spitsbergen
and narrowing it down to the winter of 1918/19, it is high time to ask,
what caused and sustained the warming for two decades. The
Arctic Ocean
winter weather is dominated by a sunless period for more than 6 months,
full sea ice cover, extreme cold, low humidity, low cloudiness, and
anticyclones. Neither sun spots, nor carbon dioxide, nor water vapor
can be considered as a significant direct contributor to generate such
a sudden remarkable shift and keep it sustained for over two decades.
As there is no indication that this warming was generated elsewhere,
and subsequently moved to the polar region, it must have been a local
source, namely warm high saline Atlantic water carried by the West
Spitsbergen Current to the
Arctic Ocean
, TM14, center row. Whether this change was due to an increase of the
water masses, or due to a change in the structure of various sea
layers over a considerable depth around the gate to the Arctic Ocean,
the
Fram
Strait
, is not known. It seems that the latter is the more likely reason.

At
least the news magazine TIMES seems to have known what it was all
about when it reported in 1947:

“Norwegian and Russian scientists
believe that the Gulf Stream,
Europe
's warm-water heating system, is flowing faster and farther into the
north, tempering the climate, driving back the pack ice. In 1909, the
Spitsbergen
coalfields had an annual shipping period of only 95 mid-season days.
In 1946, the last ship got safely away on Dec. 6. (TIME,
June16, 1947)

The
Times names Dr. Ahlmann as
the source of information saying that he has been collecting evidence
from a variety of sources: temperature records, glaciers, trees, fish,
and cites him claiming that:”In the Scandinavian countries, the winters have been getting
milder since the 19th Century, and that he “hopes the
warm cycle will last for at least a few centuries.”
Read all: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,855780,00.html#ixzz1Q2CnocEq

It lasted only two decades. For example Vinther
et al regard the year 1941 as the warmest in
Greenland
, while the 1930s and 1940s shall have been the warmest decades. North
of Greenland the warming ended earlier, actually soon after WWII
commenced.

Little is known about an extraordinary
North Atlantic
sea ice season in 1917. To my knowledge, such a long and extensive sea
ice cover occurred only once throughout the 20th Century.
Usually there remains a sea ice-free tongue off the shores of
Spitsbergen
(Fig. I-5)[2].
Against all rules, tis tongue disappeared in April 1917 (Fig. I-6) the
sea ice extended far South (Fig. I-7), remained very high throughout
June, and only retreated in July 1917 (Fig. I-8). About the
consequences one can only speculate, but it was certainly not without
any reason.

Throughout its long freezing process the ice-covered sea surface
layers must release salt, which makes the sea water heavy, and thus
increases the vertical water exchange with deeper levels. During the
subsequent melting process through July 1917 the sea surface would
have received a huge amount of fresh water; this stays at the surface
level, until salinity and/or water temperatures are back to normal.
This highly unusual event in the Northern part of the North Atlantic
from April to July 1917 could well have contributed to a shift in the
ocean structure between Spitsbergen and the
Fram
Strait
, which subsequently caused warming of the Northern Hemisphere from
winter 1918/19 to 1940.

This is the point which calls for raising the naval war issue.
Which kind of force changed the ocean structure in the high North to
allow more heat to be released during the winter season? As there was
nothing in “the air” (for example a volcanic eruption, a major
earthquake, a tsunami, a meteorite plunging on land or into the sea),
it seems necessary to recall what happened in
Europe
from 1914 to November 1918. Over four years a devastating battle on
land, in the air and at sea took place. Huge naval forces battled in
the waters east and west of
Great Britain
. It is my point of view that this may have changed the sea structure
with respect to

Figure I-9 The fragile water structure in the
Polar
Sea

heat
and salinity over many meters depth. All this water moved north with
the Norwegian Current, and the West Spitsbergen Current, to enter the
Arctic Ocean
after a time period of several weeks or months (Fig. I-16, p. 199).
This could have influenced the exceptional sea ice conditions during
summer 1917, or even may alone have contributed, via a change in the
ocean structure between Spitsbergen and Greenland, toa climatic
shift in the high north in winter 1918/19.

b. A big naval
war, and a big temperature shift in the
Arctic

aa.Which
mechanism – an introduction:

Analysing the causes and mechanisms for the EAW faces two
fundamental problems, of which the interested reader should be aware.
On one hand the acknowledgement of the influence of the ocean on all
atmospheric processes is still in an infancy stage. How many people
and scientists consider weather and climate matters in the relevant
dimension between sea water and an air column, which ranges from 3 to
10,000 cubic-meters, this means, that one degree temperature taken
from the 3m3 water volume and the atmosphere above, over 10
kilometres, can be warmed by one degree. If the air surface layer over
100 metres has a humidity of 100%, the one degree from a 3m
water-column could inject into this layer the amount of 100 degrees.
On the other hand for the
Arctic
in the early 20th Century there are virtually no direct
observations available, very few air temperature data series, and not
any on ocean temperatures, neither from the sea surface, nor from any
lower sea layer.

However,
few, but very important circumstances are established and build the
foundation for further analysis:

1.
The First World War (WWI) lasted from August 1914 until November 1918.
Since summer 1916 naval war activities and effectiveness increased
significantly due to new weapon systems and mass production.

2.
The Arctic temperatures (north of 70°N) between 1915 and 1917/18 were
particularly low (Fig. H-2). Western Europe experienced a very cold
winter 1916/17, which was the third coldest in
Great Britain
during the last century[3].

3. A highly unusual sea icing in the North
Atlantic occurred in summer 1917, when for the only time in 110 years
(1901-2010) the ice covered all sea area off
Spitsbergen
in April, thereon extended far south in May and June, and only
retreated in July 1917 (Fig. I-5 to I-8).

4.
Record high increase in winter temperatures on
Spitsbergen
in the winter 1918/19, which sustained for two decades (Fig. I-16).

While
close timing of the four events within a very short time period is
self-evident, it is not immediately obvious that their interdependence
is also very close. From a geographical point of view it looks as if
the mentioned events, which cover a sea area from the English Channel,
along the Norwegian coast up to the
Fram
Strait
with a bit more than 2000 kilometres, but with regard to the sea this
distance does not exist. In practical terms of oceanology the distance
between Scotland and Spitsbergen is zero, as by far the most of all
sea water which was once around Great Britain, reaches the front
garden west of Spitsbergen, within a small time lag of a couple of
weeks or few months.

The initial making of the EAW is not a global issue, and it is
neither a North Atlantic issue, but related to a small corridor in the
east of the northern North Atlantic, which functions more like a
single spot, rather than a long geographical stretch due to the
permanent flow of a current in only one direction, from south to north,
from the UK to the Arctic Ocean.

bb. The possible nature of causation.

Although we have some strongly correlated events it does not
tell very much about the causation, or as presumably required in our
case, about the chain of causes. On the other hand there is no
causation without correlation, and what should not be ignored, that
the more

Figure
I-10; Depth charges in action

strings
and circumstances are pointing into one direction the more it is
rectified to take any correlation seriously. That is what good science
should be all about. Unfortunately earth science is far away from
acknowledging fundamental aspects, which would have made it so much
easier to present the case. Although it would make little sense to
include them all in later
reasoning, they shall at least be mentioned briefly:

·Long term average weather (climate)
is the blue print of the ocean. The influence is a matter of
conditions of the water column (e.g. heat and salinity), and a time
factor. For a full investigation of the previously mentioned events,
one would presumably need many millions of data records along the
stretch from the English Channel to the Atlantic section of the
Arctic Ocean
. There are extreme few sea surface data available, and none from
lower sea layers.

·Until now science has very little
knowledge about what kind of human activities at sea (e.g. shipping,
fishing, offshore platforms) might have an impact on atmospheric
conditions. Even naval war activities, which is a very sudden, and
forceful penetration into the marine environment, has not reached the
attention of science.

·Neither can any benefit be drawn
from the fact that the First World War and the Second World War (WWII)
came up with a number of similar weather patterns in
Europe
, as science has done irresponsibly little research in this respect.
That becomes evident if once again, the observation by A.J.
Drummond at the Kew Observatory (London) published in 1943, is
recalled: “Since comparable records began in 1871, the only other
three successive winters as snowy as the recent ones (1939/40,
1940/41, and 1941/42) were those during the last war, namely 1915/16,
1916/17 and 1917/18, when snow fell on 23%, 48%and 23%, of the days, respectively” (Drummond
, 1943).

If
meteorology and oceanology would have done sufficient observations and
research on each of the three mentioned subjects, the question what
actually caused the EAW would presumably have been answered long ago:
the ocean and naval war contributed, by a small, medium, or to a large
extent.

Fig.
I-11 The Spitsbergen record published for the first time in
1930

cc. A brief
chronology of four years of naval war.

Four years of naval war can not be pressed into one brief
paragraph. However it should be recognised that a naval war of the
magnitude of WWI has a much more serve dimension as other ocean uses
over comparable or even much longer time periods. A particularly
decisive factor is the suddenness and the intensity over considerable
depths with regard to temperature, and salinity structure. These are
the two main factors of concern, while any other kind of interference,
e.g. by pollution, is not subject to this analysis, as it is, for me,
completely impossible and out of reach to quantify and verify its
relevance.

·August 1914 to autumn of 1916: The
first two war years are presumably irrelevant for initiation of an EAW
toward the end of the war. The sea areas affected were the Baltic, the
route to
Murmansk
, and all waters around
Great Britain
(see bottom rows of TM14, p. 191). Which interested meteorologist
could have realised that it was not difficult to observe that bigger
naval encounters immediately influenced local weather conditions, from
good visibility to mist, dust, fog, or rain due to moving from
‘hither and thither’ and shelling. For example it happened off the
coast of Scarborough on December 16th 1914 and during the
biggest sea battle ever, the Jutland Battle close to the
Skagerrak
, on May 30 and June 1, 1916, about which Winston Churchill
brilliantly elaborates in his book “The World Crisis 1911-1918”
(p. 251-272, and 599-651).

·Autumn 1916 to November 1918: The
naval war machinery went along in full gear since summer 1916, due to
new weaponry and mass production. From now on to the end of 1917 the
Allies lost, a ship tonnage of about 7,000,000 tons, which means every
month between 70 and 350 ships (April 1917) that correlates perfectly
with the exceptional summer sea icing in the North Atlantic during the
months April to July 1917.

During the remaining 10 full war months in 1918 the Allies lost
another 2,500,000 tons. The total loss of the Allied ships tonnage
during WWI is of about 12,000,000 tons, or about 5,200 vessels. Some
five million tons of cargo and storage must have been on board the
sinking ships. The total loss of all naval vessels (battle ships,
cruisers, destroyers, sub-marines, and other naval ships) amounted to
650, respectively 1,200,000 tons. It is impossible to verify how much
ammunition, how many shells, torpedoes, and bombs were used in
countless encounters.

Not less than 200,000 sea mines were placed, of which about
75,000 had been used to build the Northern Barrage between the
Orkney
Island
and
Norway
during summer 1918. Only a few months later temperatures at
Spitsbergen
went into a steep rise that became the EAW.

dd.Brief
overview of some sea and weather observations.

As the assumption of comparability between a number of weather
conditions during WWI and WWII is still an unsolved issue, and it is
not possible to be discussed here, a few aspects shall nevertheless be
mentioned in chronological order. This is merely done to indicate that
a thorough analysis of the entire period could be of considerable help
to understand the reasons of the EAW better.

Figure
I-12; The correlation between sea ice and naval war.

·__(A)The Arctic temperature record north of 70°North indicates a
period of slightly lower temperatures between 1915 and 1918. (Fig.
G3-1). See also: FigG1-5
(SST, NW of Scotland.

·__(B)
The famous icy winter battle of Masuria (north-eastern Poland) in
February 1915 between the German Army and the Russian Tenth Army,
caused the German Field Marshall Hindenburg to question:“ Have
earthy beings really done this things or is all but a fable or a
phantom”, (citation from: NYT, January 7, 1942).

·__(C) The winter 1916/17 was one of
the very cold winters in
Northern Europe
.

oThe German attack on
Verdun
started on
February 21st 1916
with one million troops; the battle became the longest of WWI and
ended on
December 18th 1916
. The French and German Army lost several hundred thousand men each.
From a climatic perspective it is to note that close battle field
regions had been more wet than usual, e.g. Baden had 30% more
precipitation, and in the
Black Forest
rain was even 50-80% higher than normal.

oAlong all coastal areas of
Great Britain
the winter season 1916/17 (DJF) was the coldest for about two decades.

oFor
Great Britain
it had been the third coldest winter during the last century (including
war winter 1939/40). All three winter months were beneath 2.0 C.[4]

oThe sea surface temperatures in the
English Channel
had been the coldest between 1903 and 1927 .

oOn
Spitsbergen
the months February, March, April, and May 1917 had been the coldest
ever recorded, Fig. I-16, below.

·__(D) The Baltic sea-ice conditions extended during
the war each year until naval war activities ended with the Russian
Revolution in October 1917. In 1941 C.J.
Oestman observed:

oTwo
very heavy ice years in succession are very rare since regular
observations began in 1879. Beside the two last winters 1939/40 and
1940/41 that has been only the case in 1915/16 and 1916/17. (Oestman,
1941)

The
sea-ice cover during the winter 1917/18 was evidently much less, see
previous Figure.

·__(E) At least one report exists claiming that the
sea water at the west coast of
Spitsbergen
had shown unusually high temperatures in summer 1918. (Weikmann, 1942).

·__(F) During the Spitsbergen winter of 1918/19 the
temperatures varied considerably. There were long periods in November
and December 1918 with temperatures close to zero degrees, 4 days with
temperatures above zero in November and 7 days in December. In January
1919, the temperatures did not reach –5°C for 14 days, and five
days were frost-free. (Fig. I-11)

·__(F) The Fisheries Research Service/Aberdeen took
sea surface temperatures in the Scotland - Faroe Channel that show a
dramatic drop from about 1914 to 1920 (Fig. A3-7,G1-6; p. 20 & p.166).

·__(G) The Russian scientist Jules Schokalsky informed the Royal Scottish Geographical Society in
1935: “The branch of the North
Atlantic Current which enters it by way of the edge of the continental
shelf round Spitsbergen has evidently been increasing in volume, and
has introduced a body of warm water so great, that the surface layer
of cold water which was 200 meters thick in Nansen's time (1895/96),
has now been reduced to less than 100 meters in thickness" (Schokalsky,
1936).

This
seldom mentioned situation should just give an idea that there might
be many hundreds other suspicious weather or sea observations, which
meteorology should identify and analyze for a full understanding of
the WWI interconnection between naval war and weather conditions.

ee.Cause III:
Which evidence is possible, available

or sufficient to draw a link to naval warfare?

As the data required to present 100% proof are missing to
99,999%, namely ocean data over considerable time periods of time,
space, and depths in many millions, and because only few air
temperature data are available, full proof is out of question. Ideally
we seek “empirical evidence”, that is the basic practice of
science, which relies on direct experience or observation in order to
describe or explain a phenomena. In a strict sense it requires that
observations are considered as being potentially replicable, a non
option for the EAW case. On the other hand it was possible to list a
number of observations and phenomena, which are closely linked by
time, space, and exceptionality, to a strong force, namely naval
warfare, and to one or more other effects, e.g., unusual sea and air
temperatures in 1917 & 1918, the North Atlantic sea ice in summer
1917 (Fig. I-5 to I-8), and the temperature jump at
Spitsbergen
(Fig. I-3 & Fig. I-16). That is no proof of causality, but the
closer, stronger, and the more comprehensive observations correlate
with each other, it can reach a stage of a “prima facie evidence”.
Prima facie denotes evidence which – unless rebutted –
would be sufficient enough to prove a particular proposition or fact[5].

Our case is strong in at least two aspects, which can not be
rebutted with reference to “natural variability”, namely:

·The extensive sea icing in the
North Atlantic in summer 1917, that happened -
to my knowledge - only this time since 1900, and

If these events shall be regarded as ‘natural’, the
claimants of such assertions need to prove that this happens more
frequently, and that they are able to compare it with other
observations of the same or of similar nature. If they remain silent,
they have to accept that the naval war thesis is a serious option and
a necessity to investigate.

With regard to the summer sea ice 1917, it is very difficult to
name a possible cause. One can exclude that the icing had been
generated from atmospheric conditions, and if so, then only marginally,
as the sea off Spitsbergen was still ice free in March, which only
ended in April at a time the sun already has some influence[6].
Also any assumption that favourable conditions for icing could have
come from the interior of the ocean seem to be a too remote
possibility. Considering a link to naval warfare would require coming
up with pollution or other factors, in a way that indicate conditions
that favour the forming of sea ice, a matter completely out of bounds
for this investigation. That is a task for universities and
institutions, and is within the responsibility of governmental
departments
in charge of climate change matters.

Fig. I-16, T°C Spitsbergen
1912-1945

Fig.
15; The route to
Spitsbergen

Concerning the sudden temperature shift in winter 1918/19, my
consideration starts with the observation by Jules
Schokalsky, that between about 1895 and 1935 the body of warm
water (West Spitsbergen Current) was so significant, that the surface
layer of cold water of 200 meters was reduced to less than 100 meters
in thickness (see above). This observation leaves two options for the
process that happened over a time span of 40 years:

a)the
decrease of thickness over 100 meters occurred gradually, e.g. about
2,5 meters per year, or

b)it
happened within a very short time span, with an initial push during a
couple of months prior to, and during winter 1918/19, causing a
significant shift that lasted for two decades. All circumstances leave
little room for not taking the push option, but to assume a kick off
situation.

Although the push-option could have started as early as in
winter 1916/17, it seems only remotely possible that any major
influence could have been coming from the low winter air temperatures
in the region between Europe and
Spitsbergen
. The starting point is more likely to be the summer sea ice in 1917,
by setting the internal ocean process into motion, which is
unfortunately completely out of reach for any consideration here. But
there is at least the information that the SST at Spitsbergen in
summer 1918 had been unusually high, and the extraordinary low SST in
the Scotland – Faroe Channel in the second half of the 1910s, making
it virtually impossible to assume ‘natural variability’ and
completely ignoring the influence of naval war.

In support of ‘prima facie’ it shall be once more repeated
what has already been outlined in the previous part, that there was
nothing in “the air”, for example a volcanic eruption, or a major
earth quake, or a tsunami, or a meteorite plunging on land or into the
sea, which could have caused the sudden temperature shift in the high
North. Instead there was a devastating war in
Europe
, with massive naval activities which penetrated deeply into huge sea
areas, where the water masses all ended up after a short period of
time in the vicinity of where the shift commenced.

Figure
I-17

c. Conclusion

The Arctic warming from 1920-1940 is one of the most puzzling
climatic anomalies of the 20th century, says Bengtsson,
et al., (Bengtsson,
2004). Meanwhile, the time available for science was more than 90
years, but they are not even able to reckon with the early Arctic
warming (EAW) that commenced within a very short period during which a
number of strange meteorological observations could be made, e.g. in
Europe (winter temperature), in the North Atlantic the summer sea ice
in 1917, and the temperature shift at Spitsbergen in winter 1918/19,
which is topped by a simultaneous operation of disastrous naval
warfare in a huge sea area around Great Britain. Due to the prevailing
ocean current system, the assumed cause (naval warfare), and the
observation in the northern North Atlantic and the adjacent Arctic
Ocean sector, human activities and significant meteorological changes
occurred, practically at one and the same location, in the northern
North Atlantic and adjacent Arctic Ocean sectors.

The circumstances are so numerous and closely interrelated, and
two major events in the North Atlantic are so exceptional, that it is
high time that atmospheric science solves the puzzle, or rebuts the
prima facie evidence that the naval war contributed considerably.
Regardless of whether the role of naval war during WWI had been only
marginal, medium, or considerable, for a science that talks about the
danger of climate change it is irresponsible not to know precisely,
the circumstances of the EAW, why it happened and why it remained from
winter 1918/19 to winter 1939/40, and whether man did contribute
through naval war in Europe.

[1]This time period is not generally acknowledged, as
many authors identify it as period of the 1920s and 1930s (i.e. Drinkwater,
2006; Bengtsson, 2004, Johannessen,
2004), and the IPCC Report 2007 mention the time from 1925 to
1945; details see: “Arctic Heats Up”, Chapter 2, p. 16f.

[2]Figutre
I-5 to I-8 are based on data from: http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/seaice/climatology/months.shtml;

[6]To
rely in this situation on the very cold Spitsbergen temperatures
from February to May 1917 (the lowest ever recorded), could prove
to be tricky, as much lower air temperatures can be assumed
inevitable from the moment the usually sea ice free tongue of
Spitsbergen was gone in April, which lasted until July 1917.

North Atlantic sea ice in summer 1917; contributing
to the biggest climatic shift last century?
And what caused this extraordinary event?Posted
by A. Bernaerts, 21 February 2014

Never
has such a high sea ice extent been observed in the
North Atlantic
as in summer 1917 (Fig.3). This exceptional case has never been
investigated. Worst! Science seems not to have taken notice of it
although thorough understanding of the event could possibly answer two
important questions concerning climate change:

FIRST: Contribute the late icing and subsequent melting process to the
sudden extraordinary warming at
Svalbard
and polar region (Fig.2 & 3) since winter 1918/19?

SECOND: Contribute naval war around
Great Britain
since 1914 to the exceptional icing?

Fig.
1; March 1917

Fig.
2; April 1917

Fig.
3; May 1917

Fig.
4; July 1917

Although
air temperatures at
Svalbard
fell to all time record low in winter 1917, sea ice conditions in March
were usual (Fig. 1). In general annual sea ice extent is highest in
April, but succeeded average already in April, Fig. 2; rising to a level
by end of May, which presumably has not happen for more than 200 years
or longer, Fig.3. Even in late July the sea ice remained at a unusual
high level, Fig.4. This late and extensive icing process may have had a
pronounced impact and ocean water structure, from sea level to may
hundred meter depth, which could have influenced the most significant
climatic change in the 20th Century, namely the Arctic and
Northern Hemisphere warming that started 18 months later in winter
1918/19 (Fig. 5, 6 & 7)..

Fig.
5;
Svalbard
, T°C, seasons & annual

Fig.
6; Annual T°C north of 70°; 1900-2013 + Fig.15

The
sudden temperature increase at Svalbard commented the Norwegian
scientist B.J. Birkeland in 1930: “In conclusion I would like to
stress that the mean deviation (at
Svalbard
, Fig. 5 & 7) results in very high figures, probably the greatest
yet known on earth”[1].
Indeed, in any way exceptional. The significance for the entire Polar
region is shown in Fig. 6 (15 & 16) indicating the annual. According
I.
Schell (1956) such a situation may not have been duplicated earlier for
200 years and more (Fig. 8). It seems that the year 1866 is regarded as
the most severe ice year (Fig. 9), but that relates to April while the
case 1917 is in May/June.

Fig.7,
Svalbard
T°C annual means

Fig.8,
I.
Schell (1959) said:

Fig.9, Extreme sea ice years

What
contributed naval war in
Europe
since August 1914? In summer 1916 the naval war machinery entered a new
dimension. Sea mines, sub-marines, torpedoes, depth charges, aerial
bombing, were produce an masse and used. Now almost 5-10 merchant ships
sunk every day. All water from SW Wales/UK and
North Sea
travelled northwards with an impact on the sea surface and ocean
structure down to many dozen meters, Fig. 10-13.

Fig.10

Fig.11

Fig.12

Fig.13

Exactly
at the same time the summer season got a sea ice extent never observed
and 1 ½ years later the biggest temperature jump in the Northern North
Atlantic and adjacent sector in the
Arctic
ever observed (Fig.14).

First QUESTION: What was the role and impact of navel war on the sea
ice situation in the
North Atlantic
in summer 1917?

Second QUESTION: What was the role and impact of summer sea ice on
the ocean structure in the high North in winter 1918/19?

Third QUESTION: What was the role and impact of naval war in
Northern European waters on the Norwegian and
West Spitsbergen
Current and subsequently ocean structure between August 1914 and
November 1918?

The correlation between warming in the
Arctic
and naval war is evident. It seems time to investigate and prove it.